Netflix Turns Focus Back to Disc

[slick1ru2]

I saw not too long ago a company making cheap 4K TVs. While the prices were very low the sizes were too small to appreciate the difference in resolution.


http://cnettv.cnet.com/seiki-cheap-4...-50146452.html

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Isn’t that your favorite footballer of all time shown quickly in the historical montage of past World Cup greats near the end of the clip?

If a 4K BD of the 2014 World Cup ever comes to fruition, I wouldn’t be surprised if it contained a mixture of native 4K footage and HD footage (up-converted to 4K, which will probably look very good)….kind of similar to what occurred (unbeknownst to consumers at the time) with the 2010 FIFA World Cup in 3D ( https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-O...Blu-ray/17152/ ).

I explained that ^ particular imagery contribution somewhere in Club Penton back-in-day….in other words, the 3D Blu-ray of the 2010 World Cup contained both native stereoscopic footage as well as 2D -> 3D converted shots (which was probably never publicized because of anti-3D conversion sentiment at the time). Anyway, a lot of 3D cameras located in prime camera positions (reserved for 2D HD cameras) would have involved the proposition of additional expensive seat kills (which doesn’t go over too well with FIFA, etc.). So, similarly, I would expect the same type of situation to happen with 4K cameras covering the 2014 Cup (they’ll lose the *turf war*), so the 4K Blu-ray producer will most likely be inclined to use some HD -> 4K up-conversion to fill in some of the action.

If this does happen, might be interesting to see if anyone can correctly spot the difference (in native acquisition), for, if memory serves, nobody could with converted stuff in the 3D Blu-ray of the 2010 World Cup (in fact, if I recall, some reviewers (unknowingly) declared the footage (which was actually 2D -> 3Dconverted) as some of the best 3D of the entire Blu-ray).

Zidane and Shakira in the same clip.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

I saw not too long ago a company making cheap 4K TVs. While the prices were very low the sizes were too small to appreciate the difference in resolution.


http://cnettv.cnet.com/seiki-cheap-4...-50146452.html

I believe that old chestnut will be blown out of the water when more 4k TVs start showing up. I have read some reviews that state the difference is obvious even on smaller sets. I will try to find the reviews and provide a link.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I believe that old chestnut will be blown out of the water when more 4k TVs start showing up. I have read some reviews that state the difference is obvious even on smaller sets. I will try to find the reviews and provide a link.

The CNet review said you have to sit 3-7' from that, or any, 50" 4k TV to see a difference using the resolution calculator. And the only content available is via computer so they tested 4k material they got with the TV. The big thing about this TV is the ultra low cost of not much over $1000. The first report I read was that this is one of the top 5 TV makers and they are putting their name on them to get recognition for the first cheap 4K TV so I guess they have been making TVs for other brands. I have a two story wall where I could put a projection screen but I am fine with our 60" Panasonic GT50. That would be the only use I see for a 4k TV.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

The CNet review said you have to sit 3-7' from that, or any, 50" 4k TV to see a difference using the resolution calculator. And the only content available is via computer so they tested 4k material they got with the TV. The big thing about this TV is the ultra low cost of not much over $1000. The first report I read was that this is one of the top 5 TV makers and they are putting their name on them to get recognition for the first cheap 4K TV so I guess they have been making TVs for other brands. I have a two story wall where I could put a projection screen but I am fine with our 60" Panasonic GT50. That would be the only use I see for a 4k TV.

There is talk of 4k on tablets. I honestly believe the distance theory will be moot.

To be fair Slick, I feel streaming is not great for projectors. There is no escaping lack of detail on a big screen. Plus artefacts look ghastly. You are probably doing the right thing sticking to large tv. Having said that, maybe if you see 4k bluray you will change your mind and start collecting?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

The CNet review said you have to sit 3-7' from that, or any, 50" 4k TV to see a difference using the resolution calculator. And the only content available is via computer so they tested 4k material they got with the TV. The big thing about this TV is the ultra low cost of not much over $1000. The first report I read was that this is one of the top 5 TV makers and they are putting their name on them to get recognition for the first cheap 4K TV so I guess they have been making TVs for other brands. I have a two story wall where I could put a projection screen but I am fine with our 60" Panasonic GT50. That would be the only use I see for a 4k TV.

My calculator is my eyes. I trust them

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

There is talk of 4k on tablets. I honestly believe the distance theory will be moot.

To be fair Slick, I feel streaming is not great for projectors. There is no escaping lack of detail on a big screen. Plus artefacts look ghastly. You are probably doing the right thing sticking to large tv. Having said that, maybe if you see 4k bluray you will change your mind and start collecting?

There is currently no 4k physical media, only computer files. You can stream the exact same quality as the source if you have the bandwidth or even if you don't and you buffer it. When my contract is up I am going to 50mbps. But even so, I buy physical media too, I've bought 100 Blu-rays this year alone.

As for the distance to see a quality difference, its all based on optical physics, so its not subjective.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

There is currently no 4k physical media, only computer files. You can stream the exact same quality as the source if you have the bandwidth or even if you don't and you buffer it. When my contract is up I am going to 50mbps. But even so, I buy physical media too, I've bought 100 Blu-rays this year alone.

As for the distance to see a quality difference, its all based on optical physics, so its not subjective.

I don't buy into that.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I don't buy into that.

Science? Optical physics?

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

As for the distance to see a quality difference, its all based on optical physics, so its not subjective.

Not true, person A will most likely have different vision than person B. With astigmatism correction I have 20-13 L and 20-15 R eyesight which means I see things at 20 feet that the average eyesight (20-20) would need to be at 13 feet in order to see it.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Not true, person A will most likely have different vision than person B. With astigmatism correction I have 20-13 L and 20-15 R eyesight which means I see things at 20 feet that the average eyesight (20-20) would need to be at 13 feet in order to see it.

They said between 3 and 7 feet. I would assume that is to include the average performers when it comes to visual acuity, 20/8 and 20/30 with the average being 20/20..

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

They said

, who is "They"

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

, who is "They"

The reviewers at CNET. I posted the link, watch it.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I believe that old chestnut will be blown out of the water when more 4k TVs start showing up. I have read some reviews that state the difference is obvious even on smaller sets. I will try to find the reviews and provide a link.

We'll see. Many reviewers are afraid to be critical of products because they don't want to be cut off from receiving products to review.

I'm guessing some LCD projection guys are susceptible to the screen door effect due to poor pixel interspacing of LCD in general. I find SXRD and DiLA (proprietary versions of LCOS) to lack any evidence of the screen door effect after a couple of feet away from the screen. The fact is with projection, unless the manufacturers are willing to put high end lenses on the units, most 4K projection units will struggle to fully resolve 4K.

Until we have a new HDMI standard that fully supports 4K at faster frame rates, buying a 4K display at this point is a dumb thing to do.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

...As for the distance to see a quality difference, its all based on optical physics, so its not subjective.

It’s based upon display system engineers and scientists using as a reference, a visual acuity of the eye of the order of 1 minute of arc (30 cycles/degree), which some investigators believe is too generous and others believe is too conservative or limiting ( see NHK’s classic SMPTE paper). So, testing of real world material with human observers is better than theory, as Steed suggests.

A good practice for a potential consumer would be to use their own eyes to make a judgment as to what is best for them rather than other people making decisions for them. With that, if all goes according to plan, JoePublic can expect to see 4K content supplied via the hockey puck (the Sony 4K media player) displayed on 4K TVs at Sony Style stores (at least in SoCal) before the end of next week.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

They said between 3 and 7 feet. I would assume that is to include the average performers when it comes to visual acuity, 20/8 and 20/30 with the average being 20/20..

Just as I expected! I am a high performer. Now, where is that bottle of wine!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

The CNet review said you have to sit 3-7' from that, or any, 50" 4k TV to see a difference using the resolution calculator....

For a 1080p 50” tv how many consumers out there do you think are following the THX guidelines?

Namely, a 5 - 7.5 foot viewing distance -

http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-ent...r/hdtv-set-up/

Look, I’m not going to dispute the distances (yea or nay) no matter whose favorite formula one chooses to use for the sake of discussing other factors….

Some serious home theater enthusiasts are willing to forego the convenience of streaming movie content from Netflix, etc. and would prefer to rent or purchase Blu-ray media in order to emulate the better quality of a theatrical experience, but in one’s home.

Some serious home theater enthusiasts are willing to purchase and configure sound systems (including dual subs, Behringer equalizers, etc.) rather than relying on the sound coming out of TV speakers….in order to emulate the theatrical experience as close as possible.

I imagine some serious home theater enthusiasts will also be willing to move their chairs a bit closer to the screen with 4K displays in order to emulate the immersive effect of the big screen theatrical experience.

And for those unwilling to do any of the above to gain any real value because they are just ‘TV watchers’, well, the consumer electronics companies will eventually make 4K panels as ubiquitous as 1080p panels over the course of time anyway.

The good thing is that for those unwilling to alter their current 1080p viewing conditions or upgrade to larger screen sizes than what they currently have, with the evolution of 4K in the home also expect screen-to-eye distances to eventually increase (from what 4K spatial resolution *math tells us* be it coming out of THX, SMPTE or cnet) with the adoption of increased bit depth, colorimetry, frame rate and dynamic range.

First-gen 4K is just the precursor…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...te#post7325076

[slick1ru2]

Move their chair closer? How about buy a bigger screen, which is what is driving 4k TVs.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

It’s based upon display system engineers and scientists using as a reference, a visual acuity of the eye of the order of 1 minute of arc (30 cycles/degree), which some investigators believe is too generous and others believe is too conservative or limiting ( see NHK’s classic SMPTE paper). So, testing of real world material with human observers is better than theory, as Steed suggests.

A good practice for a potential consumer would be to use their own eyes to make a judgment as to what is best for them rather than other people making decisions for them. With that, if all goes according to plan, JoePublic can expect to see 4K content supplied via the hockey puck (the Sony 4K media player) displayed on 4K TVs at Sony Style stores (at least in SoCal) before the end of next week.

Everyone is different, of course, but when you talking visual acuity their is a point that limits acuity due to human physiology. You get people claiming the acuity of a hawk, literally, when the macula of a human is totally different and evolved for a different purpose that didn't need the same level of acuity. I suspect that even if the the scientists are wrong, its by a statistically insignificant amount and only relates to a minute segment of the population.

[Wendell R. Breland]

IMO, the thread has been hijacked. Need to continue this in another 4K thread if one exist, if not we need a new one on 4K.